Re: [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 27 February 2018 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7A712D969 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:22:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IiEG6kEQ8qQm for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:22:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F32512DA2C for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:22:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427343004CE for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:21:58 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id lIiFa4oGBpIB for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:21:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 595E83004D7; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:21:56 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <C398E12E-1121-4182-B297-2CDC710C9731@sn3rd.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:21:57 -0500
Cc: IETF TLS <tls@ietf.org>, IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AD0D8AD0-DC69-4254-B525-7D0C3545B05F@vigilsec.com>
References: <151915624732.3939.12189669437030269709@ietfa.amsl.com> <C398E12E-1121-4182-B297-2CDC710C9731@sn3rd.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/_PhIWfhRmNlHxVAeYZsHxdEqTWk>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:22:02 -0000

>> Minor issues:
>> 
>> I think convention is to list the documents being updated in the Abstract, but
>> cannot find any formal guidance.
> 
> You’re right that is the convention, but it’s not required.  draft-flanagan-7322bis is attempting to make including updates in the abstract a must, but it’s not been through any kind of LC yet.  There is a sentence there saying that a lot of RFCs are updated and to see the updates header so I think under the 7322 to balance concise and to not include references I’m thinking this is okay.
> 

If another update top the document is needed, then it does not seem hard to comply with the coming convention.

======
>> 
>> If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean
>> SB> Do you mean "marked as not recommended" or "not marked as recommended”.
> 
> There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO.  I can go either way on whether
> marked as not recommended = NO
> not marked as recommended = NO
> 
> WG - thoughts?

I think the second wording is more clear.

>> =======
>> SB>  I am worried about the semantics of Recommended = no.
>> SB> Presumably there are three states: recommended, not recommended,
>> SB> and silent/don't know/don't care/not yet. Which of these
>> SB> states does Recommended = no represent?
> 
> There are two states and a draft that specifies a value in a registry that has a Recommended column needs to state which it is.  I’m not too concerned because we can change the column value later if it turns out a NO should have been a YES.

It would be more clear is Section 6 said that each parameter will have either "yes" or "no" in the new recommended column.

Russ